Hemant Gupta JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 6 October 2015.
3. The father of the Respondent who was working as a Peon in the Revenue Department of the State, died on 4 January 1997, while in service. On the date of the death of his father, the Respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November 2002. The policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, contains a stipulation that where none of the children of a deceased government employee have attained the age of majority at the time of the death of the employee, an application can be submitted on the attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest child. This provision is contained in paragraph 8 of the policy dated 18 January 1990. The application submitted by the Respondent upon attaining the age of majority was processed, but was eventually rejected on 25 April 2008 on the ground that the brother of the Respondent is already in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. The fact that the brother of the Respondent is employed with a State undertaking is not in dispute.
4. In the writ petition before the High Court, the Respondent urged that his brother was living separately and relied on a ration card and a certificate issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The fact that the brother was residing separately for seventeen years was admitted in the Writ Petition in the following terms:
...Because the elder brother of the Petitioner was living separately and no family member of the Petitioner is in Govt./Semi Govt. service, which fact is clear from the certificate issued by the competent authority, copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-P7. The ration card of the family of the Petitioner clearly shows that the elder brother of the Petitioner is not residing with the Petitioner, copy of ration card is annexed herewith as Annexure-P8. The Pradhan concerned has also certified that the elder brother of the Petitioner is residing separately for the last 17 years, which fact is clear from the certificate, copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-P9.
5. The Respondent, in the reliefs which were sought in the petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a direction for setting aside the letter of rejection dated 25 April 2008 and for his appointment as a Peon on compassionate grounds.
6. The Policy framed by the State Government contains the following conditions of eligibility in paragraph 5(c):
In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/bodies/boards/corporations etc. of the State/Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow........